Raw LLM Responses

I'm sympathetic to people who are opposed to AI in some sense but I think there's a lot of ostrich behavior going on that stems from how we talk about and understand art, problems we have had before AI arrived at all. Immediately I don't think the claim that "people seem to hate AI art" holds water. There have been studies showing the virality of AI-generated content on Facebook matching the virality of human-authored posts which is of course more alarming by how humans take time to generate something while an AI comparatively takes little time at all. People say they hate AI art for sure when given the platform to say exactly that, but for the uninvolved party or mean "consumer", a lot of AI generated content seems to pass the Turing test. That second part I think is key. In this video at one point, you said that something "came from your brain and not a language regurgitation software." That is quite literally what your brain is; language is the basis of thought (Wittgenstein wrote about this a century ago), and lots of psychologists believe that the phase of childhood known as "the terrible twos" happen because we have not figured out how to lose language to even formulate our thoughts and our desires yet. This in a way replicates with AI, especially AI art. People increasingly do not have access to the language to describe what about AI art is bad. If AI art is bad because it threatens artists' jobs, does that mean art is a job? If AI art is bad because it's soulless, does that mean that "soullessness" has key tells in terms of technique or composition, framing or color usage, etc.? Does this not describe the vast majority of human-generated art; is it possible for human art to fail the Turing test then? What about Mondrian, whose ideas in relationship to their era-defining art was that establishing an objective value set for all art, extending participation in it to every man of every level in ability? Does AI art not represent at least in same way the maximum democratization and accessibility of art? If it does, why is that bad? For the record, I paint and photograph as well as play music. I do not use AI because it in no way represents what I think is attractive about the very process of creating art. I do not think it is possible for AI to make the jump from something like Black Sabbath to Darkthrone. I do however think that AI poses unique cognitive challenges for humanity, whether or not it is "bad" is irrelevant as this is like arguing against the iphone in 2005. I think the Ghiblifcation trend is disgusting, but no one is graduating college without ChatGPT so we know what the future is going to look like in terms of AI art. Much more than the consumption or quality of art, I feel like AI art poses an essential question: What is the necessity of the objective, manual process of creating art to any one individual? For instance, I like photography, painting, and sketching because I like to study the things that I see. I like playing bass guitar because I enjoy the physical instance of being attuned to a rhythm. I would do these things regardless of incentive, I did these things when I was broke and when I had means. I did them before Instagram, I will do them after AI.